Add Comment

A nation without control of its borders and immigration is no nation. It has no sovereignty. Rights as expressed in our founding documents can not be enforced universally for all humans of every nation. If this were so we would have the right to interfere with every other sovereign nation, on every occasion where their citizens are being treated contrary to our laws. When we had land a plenty and were giving it away to homesteaders, we had greater need for numbers and skills were of less importance, but this is not the case today. Today we need to remove the welfare state that attracts the indolent and adjust our immigration policy so that it is easier for producers to enter. Open borders is just another way of saying free for all. Visitors are welcome, but residency and especially citizenship should only occur by proper procedure, not by amnesty or by imagining that all will work out fine if we just let them all come (open borders).The fallacy is in believing that the dregs which are incapable of making it in their own nation won't be the bulk of the people (or at least a large percentage) trying to come here. Like most people failure is thought of as someone else's fault or the economy in which you exist, not a personal failing. While this is not true in many circumstances, of many of the immigrants, there seems no reason to believe that the numbers and attitude are any better than those of our present populace. Economics will come into play if the supply of unskilled laborers is increased. The price of low skilled wages will be depressed. Supply and Demand... This has nothing to do with rights. It is an inescapable result/reality. The cost to the taxpayers in benefits are also a serious net loss. Most of the problems with a more open immigration policy could be largely mitigated if we simply shutdown the welfare state magnet. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...

I have given a point to Rozar for the interesting post. I disagree with Craig Biddle's article for several reasons. The pull of the welfare state angle, if you let in a few who want the benefits, allow them to vote, you then get large numbers, you will never reform welfare, it will just grow. Even with no benefits, the new arrivals will squat and claim ownership. Suppose they squat on those memorial sites in the news? ObjectiveAnalyst has got it right. You may think the new arrivals just want to work, there is a type around now who want to take over. Surely, a nation has the right to choose, getting it wrong sometimes is the price of responsibility.

I cannot speak for the US but in my country, also an immigrant society, there have been notorious cases of well qualified productive people being thrown out while illegals qualify for welfare and join terror gangs.

They are if they come into my home uninvited. I don't care how great a producer you are; *I* get to say who is welcome and who is not welcome *in my home*. No matter how great a producer you are, try coming into my home uninvited.

I'm not saying there's no system to check whose coming into the country. I'm not saying we shouldn't use discretion in allowing people in. I'm saying if you can't prove some one has ill intents what gives you the right to stop me from contracting with anyone?

It's difficult to keep that car wash wanting to provide money and the worker wanting to provide work apart. I know the point of the article is what _should_ we do. I'm just saying if the answer is keep people who want to trade from trading, enforcing it is hard.

No "scabs" (ironic phrase, since that's the term union scum use to describe non-union workers who come in to do work the union won't do because it's too busy blackmailing the company but I digress....) are allowed into the Gulch.

Nobody's allowed to stay in the Gulch until and unless they take the oath.

So you wanna suggest that we give up having a nation and open our borders to the scum of the Earth? Fine, suggest it. But don't cry when I get in your face and shout, "HYPOCRITE".

Alright man Galt is not Jesus and the constitution isn't the Bible. Don't argue like they are infallible. Tell me logically and rationally why YOU disagree and stop appealing to authority. I would like to know why I'm the hypocrite for believing that individual rights entails being allowed to do what I think is right for my life, including contracting with foreigners, as long as I'm not infringing on others rights. What is hypocritical about that because it seems pretty consistent to me.